Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name (usually not your first and last name), your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:

Password

Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:

Confirm Password:

Email Address

Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:

Insurance

Please select your insurance company (Optional)

Log-in

User Name

Remember Me?

Password

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.

Additional Options

Miscellaneous Options

Automatically parse links in text

Automatically embed media (requires automatic parsing of links in text to be on).

Automatically retrieve titles from external links

Topic Review (Newest First)

03-17-2013 09:42 PM

aosborn

I did a restoration on a 71 Hemi Cuda some time ago. It had a trashed drivers door so we found a replacement from a 73 or 74. That replacement looked identical, but it must have weighed 50 or 60 pounds more. It was due to internal bracing for side impact protection I would guess. It was amazing the difference in just a few model years.

New cars are made from lighter materials, but they have to add so much structure to meet crash standards and so many options, they never seem to get any lighter overall.

Thanks for the comments Andy. I haven't weighed the car, but When I get a chance I'll take it to the scale. It will be interesting to know the weight change afer the modifications. Will post the numbers.

John

My '57 chevy two door sedan 210 was the lightest car that I have owned. Funny that I remember the weights of my first three cars. '57 210 was 3373, '62 Impala SS w/327 & PG was 3485, '67 Impala SS w/283 & PG was 3615. Compare that to my 2010 Equinox w/2.4 liter 4 cyl & 6 spd. auto weighing 3700 lbs. Wanna see something scary, look at the weight of a new mustang or camaro. And we thought the '70 olds 442 was heavy.

03-17-2013 09:38 AM

timothale

ford truck bolt pattern

There were very few light duty F 100's built in 1980 that used the passenger car 5 x 4.5 patterrn and 14 in wheels. At the end of the production run the factory donated a pallet of 9 in rear ends to the college where I was teaching. I did some saturday work building selves and the dept head asked me if I wanted the ones not used for Demo's . I said they were too wide for my roadster projects but decided to take one, about a month after they were all gone I found that they were all detroit lockers. Government regulations changed and it was cheaper for the factory to build F 150's with a higher GVW rating and fall into a different emission classification and not require expensive emission equipment, air pump, cats, etc.

03-17-2013 01:54 AM

GFaRT

Thanks for the comments Andy. I haven't weighed the car, but When I get a chance I'll take it to the scale. It will be interesting to know the weight change afer the modifications. Will post the numbers.

John

03-16-2013 10:25 PM

aosborn

I still have my Grandfathers 65 F-100 that he bought new. The first year of the twin I-beam. I just gifted it to my son upon his graduation from college.

GFaRT, you are right on the money with your analysis of that front end. If you install it properly so the camber is where you want it at ride height, you won't have a problem. It also goes negative in bump which is what you want. Toe wear won't be a problem if all the steering linkage is tight, just like on any other car. You could add an anti-roll bar, (my son and I plan on doing that to Grandpa's truck), and weight jacks on the coil spring were also in the plan to fine tune ride height. Static camber on my Gramps old truck is about 1/2 degree positive, so one plan we had was to redrill the inner beam pivot up as far as we could (about 3/4") and then adjust the truck down with the weight jacks until we are sitting at about 1/2 degree negative on the camber. That should lower the truck about 1 1/2" to 2" with no other modifications. Then maybe add power steering and it will then be good to go.

Folks say that those old Chevy's are heavy. What is heavy on those old cars is the engines and cast iron transmissions. The frames and the bodies are actually quite light. Have you weighed your car? I would have no concerns putting a Mustang II in one of those, and have many times. Mustang II's aren't that light either I might add. All that 5 mph bumper crud, V-8's in many of them, hundreds of pounds of ugly simulated leather upholstery and plastic door panels, and don't forget the padded vinyl tops!

Re-drill the flanges if you want to change the bolt pattern. Not a big deal...

Regards,

Andy

03-14-2013 07:11 PM

matt167

The Camaro actually weighs right about what your old Chevy weighs. Bit lighter, but not really all that much. It would be what I recommend to use if you really want a highway driver with a good inline.

My Rat rod has a 1994 Ford Ranger front end on it. It's not perfect by any means, but it will do what I want it to. However, I wouldn't think of it for my 1951 Chevy..

03-14-2013 02:48 PM

MARTINSR

I understand this isn't restorations.com but we are car lovers in general (some of us) not just hot rod lovers. I personally get a kick out of a nice original stocker as much as a radical blown hot rod, they both are one in the same to me, not one bit of difference in my eyes. When I see such a nice stocker I just can't imagine making such big changes that's all.

You are well on your way and you sound knowledgeable, just build it as you wish and we still would like to see it's progress.

Brian

03-14-2013 12:35 PM

GFaRT

First, this car will not be kept all original. This isn't "vintage restorations.com". It is a very nice specimen to work with as there is no rust. One of my first cars back in 1964 was just like this, which I drove in stock form for 3 years.

The 216 babbit pounder splash lube six will run forever putting around town, but just does not cut it on the freeway at 75 or in mountain driving. The ball bearing front hubs are very susceptable to miss adjustment and don't last at all like Timken rollers. Likewise the original suspension and steering has a short wear life and gets sloppy so is not good for freeway cruising in comfort.

As for brakes, I've had an S10 Blazer and the brakes were a headache. The blazer brakes are 'bout the same size as the Camaro but the car is heavier and the wheels are larger. The result is they would often overheat and burn or warp the disks comin' down the mountain. The '48 Chev is a fair bit heavier than the Camaro and will have larger diameter tires (closer to the originals). So I value bigger brakes.

I realize that Mustang II and Camaro/Nova suspensions are most popular for old car upgrades. Both of these options were designed for lighter cars. So you can get aftermarket upgrades for brakes and dropped spindles etc. but I see more $$$ this way. I like factory junk yard parts that will do the same job. So maybe Ford LTD or Chev P/U or ??.

As for the twin I beam, I'm aware that there is a lot of controversy over this suspension. I've heard that on a van the tire wear was horrendous. I've also heard from a P/U owner that liked it better than his Chev. I figgur that a change in the ride height from loading the van in particular, where more of the load can be on the front axle will result in camber and toe-in change that will cause tire wear. So it may be important to be able to easily sdjust ride height such as with air bags or jacking screws over the springs like the stock car racers use. Also improvement to the steering geometry should help.

I have one other wrinkle to consider. I want to put twin turbos on the 300 six. So clearance between the front turbo and the upper A arm pivot might be an issue.

I'm still open on this. Am looking for the best junkyard solution that has good brakes and readily available replacement parts.

John

03-14-2013 10:13 AM

matt167

Not to mention the bolt pattern on the wheels being the big ford pattern. That F-150 has offset beams which wouldn't work too easy. Cboy made them work, but on a home built with custom rails and ran no hood or fenders.

The stock suspension will hold the 300 I6 easy with some custom mounts. Could even find a column shift 3spd and hook it up to the stock column. No reason to over complicate things.

03-14-2013 09:40 AM

timothale

my opinion

If you want a Six, I would keep it , the trans and computer to run everything and buy bigger brakes for your camero clip. too much work to use the ford chassis parts.

03-14-2013 09:34 AM

MARTINSR

Quote:

Originally Posted by adantessr

I don't really understand what you have against the front ball bearings. All modern cars have ball bearings in those sealed units. And as for the brakes, there has to be some alternative to changing the whole front axle. Having said that, it is your ride and you are free to do as you want. I am with Brian though, I just don't understand.

I don't believe any car has "ball bearings" they have "Roller bearings".

I understand the front end is antiquated on that Chevy, without a doubt like my Rambler it is an odd beast with the knee action shocks and all. I just don't think the twin I beam is the way to go. I have been told that it isn't my car so I can't this little Chevy the way I would, it is his after all.

But it is such a nice car I just can't see doing much of anything to it. If it were all rebuilt it would drive just fine, I have put thousands of miles on those bearings and brakes and never thought a thing of it.

But alas, it's not my car! Crap, but honestly GFaRT, I still say that split I beam isn't for that car, there are much better ways to go. And you certainly don't need the GIANT brakes that truck has! I just don't get it, why would you need those GIANT brakes?

Brian

03-14-2013 09:08 AM

adantessr

I don't really understand what you have against the front ball bearings. All modern cars have ball bearings in those sealed units. And as for the brakes, there has to be some alternative to changing the whole front axle. Having said that, it is your ride and you are free to do as you want. I am with Brian though, I just don't understand.

03-14-2013 12:11 AM

MARTINSR

If you plan on changing it so much sure you can make it work, I don't get it, but you could make it work.

Brian

03-13-2013 07:06 PM

GFaRT

Quote:

Originally Posted by MARTINSR

That truck is home made, you can do anything you want when you are building something from scratch, when you have to make it work where you have limitations that is a whole different story.

I haven't measured it, but I would say that the track on that twin I beam is at the very least four inches wider than the one in your Chevy.

What are your expectations with your Chevy? Taking on road trips, driving it on weekends around the town, daily driver? What are your expectations?

Brian

The track width of the truck is roughly 7" wider than the Chev, so will have to be narrowed up. I do not expect to use the crossmember or frame rail stubs from the truck at all. It is easy for me to fab up a custom crossmember etc. as needed. In the Chev the engine is mounted about 6" further back relative to the front axle so with the profile of the oil pan there will be more clearance to allow lowering.

Winter is not kind to cars here, but the car will be used as a sunny day daily driver in the summer and for summer road trips such as to Bonneville.

John

03-13-2013 04:01 PM

MARTINSR

That truck is home made, you can do anything you want when you are building something from scratch, when you have to make it work where you have limitations that is a whole different story.

I haven't measured it, but I would say that the track on that twin I beam is at the very least four inches wider than the one in your Chevy.

What are your expectations with your Chevy? Taking on road trips, driving it on weekends around the town, daily driver? What are your expectations?

Brian

This thread has more than 15 replies.
Click here to review the whole thread.